Couple sail the world with 1 year old kid, need rescuing - lousy parenting or not?

Tokyo

U.S. Navy rescues family with sick baby from disabled sailboat

I'm somewhat torn on this, because I was lucky enough in that my father took me traveling, camping and climbing since I was about three years old, and encouraged me to travel on my own since my teens and my life has been shaped for the better because of that. Therefore I'm all for people living out their dreams and taking on challenges and including their children, rather than letting them turn into the playstation generation that we seem to have today.

But it also seems to me a fairly basic assumption that a one year old infant shouldn't be out in the middle of the ocean, and that sailing around the world in a 36 foot sailboat with two children, age one and three, is more about the parents putting themselves before their children than anything else. That kind of voyage is very dangerous (as they found out), and those undertaking it do so with the knowledge that catastrophe is a very real possibility.

So what does everyone else think? Wonderful parents, providing an amazing adventure for their children? Or lousy parenting, where the parents were more concerned about meeting their own needs than the needs of their children? And would you try something like this with your children, or approve if a family member proposed it?

wazky

Lousy sailors I would have thought.

bearhugs

I think that the kids are way too young, they're not even going to remember the trip. It seems far too ambitious a trip to take with such small children. If they were in their teens maybe they would get more out of it. Can't really call it a fantastic experience when the children won't remember a thing. Fair play to them for at least trying something different other than as you said the play station generation though.

MadYaker

Since the child almost certainly won't remember it I doubt it will have done them much good. The child didn't die and they got to safety so I guess we shouldn't be too hard on them.

But you have to wonder why bother?

Tokyo

MadYaker wrote: »

The child didn't die and they got to safety so I guess we shouldn't be too hard on them.

Well they didn't die because four National Guard rescuers parachuted into the water (risking their own lives) to reach the disabled vessel, so it's not like they managed to solve their own problems either - but that's a discussion for another day...

Mark Tapley

mike_ie wrote: »

Well they didn't die because four National Guard rescuers parachuted into the water (risking their own lives) to reach the disabled vessel, so it's not like they managed to solve their own problems either - but that's a discussion for another day...

God I hope not.

Tokyo

Mark Tapley wrote: »

God I hope not.

Fair game then. I used to be part of one of the Rescue Services in Ireland, many's the time I'd have to bite my tongue at the efforts we'd put in because of somebody's stupidity. So I have a somewhat biased opinion on that.

Only alternative is to charge for the service, and then people start thinking about the cost first and foremost, and not call for help until it is too late. More expensive, but fewer people die....

Mark Tapley

mike_ie wrote: »

Fair game then. I used to be part of one of the Rescue Services in Ireland, many's the time I'd have to bite my tongue at the efforts we'd put in because of somebody's stupidity. So I have a somewhat biased opinion on that.

Only alternative is to charge for the service, and then people start thinking about the cost first and foremost, and not call for help until it is too late. More expensive, but fewer people die....

Sorry I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant a discussion about irresponsible parenting. I have great admiration for the Rescue Services.

Menas

Its hard enough to parent a 1 year old in my opinion without trying to do it in a constricted space far from home.
The practicalities of nappies, fresh fruit and milk...the things a kid needs. Not to mention being around other kids and learning and socialising.

So I think they are selfish and stupid parents.

mike_ie

mike_ie wrote: »

Only alternative is to charge for the service, and then people start thinking about the cost first and foremost, and not call for help until it is too late. More expensive, but fewer people die....

Or maybe they won't call at all until it's utter catastrophe, hoping to save the money. And more people die.

I'm not sure that charging would result in less lives lost, but it probably would cut down on the amount of call outs.

Edit: Misread Mikes point!

The Backwards Man

People who needlessly put the lives of others in danger make me angry.

Tokyo

Candie wrote: »

Or maybe they won't call at all until it's utter catastrophe, hoping to save the money. And more people die.

I'm not sure that charging would result in less lives lost, but it probably would cut down on the amount of call outs.

I think you misread my post - I'm not advocating charging at all, quite the opposite

mike_ie

mike_ie wrote: »

I think you misread my post - I'm not advocating charging at all, quite the opposite

Doh!

Riamfada

I used this today as an example of why you cant have children and continue to enjoy life! Little ****factories ruin everything.

Buy a people carrier and resolve to eating dinner in kid friendly restaurants like everyone else!

Wacker The Attacker

If they are rich enough to run a boat. I hope they ply him with coke and hookers when his appearance on my sweet sixteen comes around

the groutch

At least on the boat nobody could kidnap any of the kids while they're wining and dining.

Menas

the groutch wrote: »

At least on the boat nobody could kidnap any of the kids while they're wining and dining.

Unless the somali coast was on their route!

ceadaoin.

I read about this yesterday. The thoughts of putting my child in such potentially dangerous situation makes my stomach turn. I think they are very selfish, the kids are too young to get anything out of a trip like this. They should have waited until the kids were older if they really wanted to do it.

anncoates

Terrible stuff.

Even worse than the landlocked parents and kids we usually interminably complain about.

Sh1tbag OToole

Fair fcuks to these people for not going all boring when they had kids like most people do. Whats next? living more than 50 miles from a hospital and having kids will be bad parenting? People are so judgemental about how others rear their kids these days.

I think in this story the people just had a run of bad luck, boat decides to give bother and the child chooses exactly the wrong time to get sick. What can ya do? Should everyone give up sailing incase a crew member gets sick?

Femme_Fatale

mike_ie wrote: »

But it also seems to me a fairly basic assumption that a one year old infant shouldn't be out in the middle of the ocean, and that sailing around the world in a 36 foot sailboat with two children, age one and three, is more about the parents putting themselves before their children than anything else. That kind of voyage is very dangerous (as they found out), and those undertaking it do so with the knowledge that catastrophe is a very real possibility.

So what does everyone else think? Wonderful parents, providing an amazing adventure for their children? Or lousy parenting, where the parents were more concerned about meeting their own needs than the needs of their children?

Seems the one in bold IMO. As you've outlined in your first paragraph, the dangers are pretty straightforward. What about an emergency medical situation that requires hospitalisation? Oh yeh, it happened. What about drinking water? I heard an interview with a guy who did this on his own and his desalination equipment started giving up the ghost. What about unforeseen dangers like weather, sea creatures, other sailing vessels, something happening to the food supply. It's one of these things that can be prepared for to kingdom come (and I've no doubt the parents did so) but which will still have serious risks attached.

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Fair fcuks to these people for not going all boring when they had kids like most people do.

Yes, leading a low-risk life when you have babies is... "going all boring".

Whats next? living more than 50 miles from a hospital and having kids will be bad parenting?

Nnnnnnno? Quite a leap.

I think in this story the people just had a run of bad luck, boat decides to give bother and the child chooses exactly the wrong time to get sick. What can ya do? Should everyone give up sailing incase a crew member gets sick?

Because a toddler is obviously just as resilient as a seasoned sailor, and "chooses" to get sick, and of course toddlers aren't prone to all kinds of bugs at all.

It seems like it's just a high-risk adventure for the parents, which has zero to do with "raising" kids. As said, they won't even remember it anyway.

Sh1tbag OToole

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Seems the one in bold IMO. As you've outlined in your first paragraph, the dangers are pretty straightforward. What about an emergency medical situation that requires hospitalisation? Oh yeh, it happened. What about drinking water? I heard an interview with a guy who did this on his own and his desalination equipment started giving up the ghost. What about unforeseen dangers like weather, sea creatures, other sailing vessels, something happening to the food supply. It's one of these things that can be prepared for to kingdom come (and I've no doubt the parents did so) but which will still have serious risks attached.

Yes, leading a low-risk life when you have babies is... "going all boring".

Nnnnnnno? Quite a leap.

Because a toddler is obviously just as resilient as a seasoned sailor.

I think you know all of the above though, and will keep arguing yellow is black just to go against the grain for the sake of it. It's nothing to do with "raising" kids anyway; it's a high-risk adventure just for the parents, which has zero to do with raising kids. It could be done another time, when the kids are old enough to remember the experience and aren't at such risk health-wise.

Ah you have it in for me. Before people had kids and got on with their lives, now its almost mandatory to be seen making big lifestyle changes and going into 'full child support mode' until they become adults. There is a sort of one upmanship going on with who can sacrifice the most for their child. Also you'd wonder why in the feck the child would get sick, not loads of human infectious diseases out on the high seas

Femme_Fatale

Not sure how I have it in for you. A lot of people get fierce funny about a detailed, supported disagreement with them or when their obvious bullsh1t is pointed out.

People still get on with their lives when they have children. Before, people didn't go on high-risk boat trips with them. There is some attachment parenting out there (not that it's commonplace at all) and one doesn't have to go on a high-risk boat trip to stick it to the attachment parents.

You wouldn't wonder why a child that small would get sick, no.

I edited my last post in case I was being too presumptuous that you were just arguing for the sake of it (and very feebly too), I realise I shouldn't have.

Tokyo

Also worth noting that the mother had bugger all sailing experience herself - she had been introduced to sailing by her husband. Would have been interesting to see the outcome if he'd come down with something, rather than the child...

Sh1tbag OToole

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Not sure how I have it in for you. A lot of people get fierce funny about a detailed, supported disagreement with them.

People still get on with their lives when they have children. Before, people didn't go on high-risk boat trips with them. There is some attachment parenting out there (not that it's commonplace at all) and one doesn't have to go on a high-risk boat trip to stick it to the attachment parents.

You wouldn't wonder why a child that small would get sick, no.

I edited my last post in case I was being too presumptuous that you were just arguing for the sake of it (and very feebly too), I realise I shouldn't have.

These boat trips arent as high risk as they were before and these lads seemed well enough prepared but sh1t does still happen sometimes. Maybe I'm wrong but I would have thought the chances of picking up something like the child did were quite small when you are living far from civilisation. A lot of money and planning goes into these trips and it can be hard to put it off for a few years. I have heard people saying its bad to bring a small child onto a plane , and calling all sorts of out of the ordinary lifestyles 'child abuse' and feck it i dont even know if its that good for the children if they all grew up in the same boring standardised way

Femme_Fatale

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

These boat trips arent as high risk as they were before and these lads seemed well enough prepared but sh1t does still happen sometimes.

Exactly. I assumed they would have been really prepared too, but only the man is an experienced sailor. I don't know what you're trying to say really - these boat trips aren't as high-risk as they were before... but they're still high-risk.

I have heard people saying its bad to bring a small child onto a plane , and calling all sorts of out of the ordinary lifestyles 'child abuse'

But what's the relevance of that to this story? It doesn't make risky adventures any less risky.

and feck it i dont even know if its that good for the children if they all grew up in the same boring standardised way

But... what...? Your rationalising is weird. You don't know if it's good - why do you not know if it's good? How is it bad? Stability, safety, structure, good healthcare - these are good for small children.
It's pretty unfair to sneer at people who are raising their children without exposing them to risk. What's the advantage of the latter supposed to be? "Being different" in and of itself despite the kids being too young to remember it in the future and having no active part of it?

tempura

If you have ever been sailing for a period of time, one of the main requirements is two able bodied strong people, there is a list of eventualities that can happen and thats just during a short trip.

If you hit bad weather, you need both crew members alert and on the ball, a storm can last anything from one hour to a full day.

The list of things you need to keep on top off in this situation is endless. A huge workload with two able bodied adults.

How in the name of god, you can also take care of a baby and a toddler in this situation is beyond me.

I had trouble taking mine to Tescos when they were this age !

Its against the law to take a child in a car without an appropriate car seat, how was this allowed to happen.

This amount of things that could have gone wrong ( and obviously did ) is endless.

The whole thing is madness.

Femme_Fatale

tempura wrote: »

If you have ever been sailing for a period of time, one of the main requirements is two able bodied strong people, there is a list of eventualities that can happen and thats just during a short trip.

If you hit bad weather, you need both crew members alert and on the ball, a storm can last anything from one hour to a full day.

The list of things you need to keep on top off in this situation is endless. A huge workload with two able bodied adults.

How in the name of god, you can also take care of a baby and a toddler in this situation is beyond me.

I had trouble taking mine to Tescos when they were this age !

Its against the law to take a child in a car without an appropriate car seat, how was this allowed to happen.

This amount of things that could have gone wrong ( and obviously did ) is endless.

The whole thing is madness.

Yeh, abusive: of course not. Irresponsible: yes. Naive too it seems, as well as self indulgent. Just answering the OP's question.

Red Pepper

Ridiculous idea. I am glad they failed miserably but of course that the baby was fine. It might put future irresponsible parents off the idea.
Round the world with a 1 year old, clever.

Mickey Dolenez

Yes, you were three, OP when your parents took you travelling, so you have memories, but that child was one year old, lousy parents.

Sh1tbag OToole

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Exactly. I assumed they would have been really prepared too, but only the man is an experienced sailor. I don't know what you're trying to say really - these boat trips aren't as high-risk as they were before... but they're still high-risk.

But what's the relevance of that to this story? It doesn't make risky adventures any less risky.

But... what...? Your rationalising is weird. You don't know if it's good - why do you not know if it's good? How is it bad? Stability, safety, structure, good healthcare - these are good for small children.
It's pretty unfair to sneer at people who are raising their children without exposing them to risk. What's the advantage of the latter supposed to be? "Being different" in and of itself despite the kids being too young to remember it in the future and having no active part of it?

Just saying no matter what you do there will always be someone at the beach berating you for putting the poor child at risk. This crowd might have had a good chance if their boat hadnt packed up. If someone wants to live the boring life because of the kids and what might happen to them otherwise I wont try to stop them but at the same time I wont have a go at someone for trying things differently. The kids might not see any benefit from that when they are 1 but how bad, not everything has to revolve around the kids

Femme_Fatale

"But how bad" - oh, um... yeh... great rationale there.

Not living a life with risks attached when you've kids is being boring. O... k.

If you have children you have to put them first, that's just how it goes. It's not turning into a boring ****er or being too mollycoddling or not getting on with your life, or being stupidly protective; it's literally just the way it is when you have a human being depending on you entirely. I don't have kids btw so this isn't bias.

no matter what you do there will always be someone at the beach berating you for putting the poor child at risk.

But... so what? That doesn't change the fact that there's some stuff that is straightforwardly irresponsible.

This crowd might have had a good chance if their boat hadnt packed up.

Oh well, they might have had a good chance of living - good enough so.

I wont have a go at someone for trying things differently.

You would really if you knew there were serious risks attached. "Trying things differently" doesn't require being irresponsible.

suicide_circus

Probably irresponsible parenting but c'mon, someone has got to do crazy stuff! Imagine everyone was stuck at home on boards...playin it safe...at least these folks are out doin ****...making it happen, man

Femme_Fatale

They can do it without their really small kids.

Capt'n Midnight

Did they have a rescue bond or rescue insurance ?

Serious question because of the number of "round the world" sailors that need very expensive rescues.



Anyway here's the blog http://www.therebelheart.com/

https://twitter.com/CaptEricKaufman

Gatling

The sad thing this one year old had salmonella the week before the parents set off on this trip ,